Re: GPL traitor !

[Hadron]

JEDIDIAH <jedi@nomad.mishnet> writes:

> On 2009-05-14, Hadron <hadronquark@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hyman Rosen <hyrosen@mail.com> writes:
>>
>>> Alan Mackenzie wrote:
>>>> We have been discussing, in the main, a single computer program,
>>>  > the GCC compiler.
> [deletia]
>>> No, you are completely wrong. You do not need permission from the other
>>> copyright holder unless you copy. Copyright is about copying. US copyright
>>> law explicitly protects interoperability with other programs. You are
>>> inventing concepts to suit your purposes that simply do not exist in US
>>> copyright law - their opposites do.
>>>
>>
>> That's funny. You're still talking about. What happened to Alan#s claim
>> that the GPL was really easy to understand?
>
>     The GPL is pretty simple.

Good old Jeb! In the face of oodles of evidence to the contrary and a
500 post thread in steams Jeb with a ridiculous over simplification once
more....

>
>     Plenty of people like to try and weasel out of it though.
>
>     The only really interesting issue is what a derivative work is. The
> rest is simply a matter of very mundane copyright law. This is also 
> something else that people try to turn into something that's more complex
> than it really is.
>
>      You can replace the GPL with any other license or EULA or even straight
> copyright law and end up with the same "problem".
>
>      Courts exist because most people aren't honorable enough for just a 
> simple handshake.

You mean people break the law. Correct. And why the GPL and OSS in
general is going nowhere fast in the commercial world. Freeloaders like
Phil Da Lick will steal your code, modify one line and then sell it on
as their own.

-- 
In view of all the deadly computer viruses that have been spreading
lately, Weekend Update would like to remind you: when you link up to
another computer, you’re linking up to every computer that that
computer has ever linked up to. — Dennis Miller